For some years now, the poster who goes by the name of ''Textusa'' has refused to publish posts which pose questions she either cannot or would prefer not to answer.
Textusa likes to claim that she withholds posts because they contain abusive language. In fact this is rarely the case - usually they simply point out the flaws in her ridiculous notions
So if she refuses to publish your posts and you want to have your say, send them to me. I'll put them on here for you

Translate

Thursday, 6 September 2018

I see dead people.........

It had to be said, as lie detector tests go, Tony's was a bit shit

Evening all.Time for a little Bennett-debunking, I think.The Cadaverous Tramp has been energetically telling lies about Mrs Pamela Fenn, who is unable to defend herself on account of being dead.So there are only two choices - either get Sabre-toothed Gurney to contact her from beyond the grave via the magic of some shitty crystal she purchased from QVC, or point out to Baldylocks that he's a big old liar.Yeah, let's go for Plan B

10 REASONS WHICH SUGGEST THAT PAMELA FENN DID NOT HEAR ANY CHILD CRYING ON TUESDAY 1 MAY 2007

The owner of the world's widest parting starts in typical fashion - with a statement indicating he has already made your mind up for you. Twat.

1. On her own admission, she did not report the crying incident to the police at the time, or later

You think people go running to the police every time they hear a child crying? Get a life. And she did report it later, that's why it is in her statement. Stop me if I'm going too fast for your calcified neurons

2. She appears to have been prompted into making her statement by the McCann Team

Absolute bullshit. No indication whatsoever that this is the case

3. Mrs Fenn’s account of a burglary at her home in the weeks before 28th April is at the very least open to doubt. If she was not truthful about that, we simply cannot use her statement as evidence of anything.

Why is it open to doubt? Because you say so? Load of bollocks, no reason for her to make it up

4. Despite a child allegedly continually crying and sobbing for 75 minutes, with other properties all around, not one other person has ever corroborated the ‘crying incident’. No-one else heard it.

So what? Noise does not travel equally in all directions. She was in the flat above, and heard. You could have had a farting elephant in the room and people across the road might not have heard it, what with windows and shutters and no direct contact. Dozy pillock.

5. Mrs Fenn says that she ’phoned and spoke to a Mrs Edna Glyn ‘some time after 11.00pm’, that is, after the crying had been going on for over half-an-hour. We have never seen any corroboration of this from Mrs Glyn

So fucking what? Why would we expect to see anything of the kind? You think an elderly lady is going to go public just in case some follicularly-challenged wanktrumpet can have his deranged mind put at rest 11 years later?

6. It is claimed by Mrs Fenn that when she spoke to Mrs Glyn, she replied: ‘I am not surprised’. According to Mrs Fenn’s evidence, the child she heard crying was sobbing continually - and so must have been audible to her and Mrs Glyn as they were talking (if they were). Yet on Mrs Fenn’s evidence, neither of them bothered to lift a finger about it. They could have called the police or the Ocean Club. But they did nothing

Absolute bullshit. She was on the phone to Mrs Glynn - Maddie would have had to be screaming her lungs out for her to have heard. And why SHOULD they do anything? It wasn't their responsibility, there was no suggestion the child was anything other than distressed. If someone is making that much noise, they are generally okay (First Aid 101)

7. In any event, Mrs Fenn’s account of contacting Mrs Glyn about the crying appears to conflict with the account of a police officer, who testified that Robert Murat had said that ‘some foreign woman’ had ’phoned him up on the night of the ‘crying incident’

Okay - we are now entering "You are a lying shit" territory. The policeman did no such thing. He testified that at some point Murat had phoned the post to let them know that some WOMEN, who were foreigners, could hear a child cryingThere was NO suggestion it was on the night in question, quite the opposite.He did not say 'woman', he said ''women''Robert Murat was contacted by some women, who had already spoken to the police, to say they could hear a child crying. Correct thing to do. He contacted the police. Correct thing to do.Stop fucking lying about it, you oily tit.

8. The description Mrs Fenn gives about the age of the child that she says she heard crying is strange, clumsy and contrived. Allowing for the possibility that something may have been ‘lost in translation’, her statement says that the crying was coming from directly below her and that “the tone of the crying seemed to be a young child and not a baby of two years of age or younger”. The twins were two years and two months during the holiday in Praia da Luz. Thus Pamela Fenn’s statement appears to rule them out. There is at least a suspicion therefore that her statement has been carefully crafted to suggest that it was Madeleine that was crying

More bullshit. There is nothing clumsy or contrived about it. She stated that the child was using words, not just wailing. That suggests the older child. Cock.

9. A news clip about Mrs Fenn appeared on SIC TV, Portugal, on 22 August two days after her statement at Portimao Police Station. In it, she denied having any information about the case:

Outright lie.She very clearly denied having spoken to any journalists. She did NOT deny having information about the case, you just made that up. Wankstain.

Angry at the journalists' questions, Mrs Fenn denied being a witness inthe case and said that what the press were saying was ‘pure speculation’.

Another lie. She did not deny being a witness or say that they were speculating.Why do you do this, Bennett? These are easily provable lies, you dozy pissflange.

10. Mrs Fenn herself was interviewed for the programme and said that anything she was supposed to have said to the police was ‘rubbish’.

No she fucking didn't. She said that she had not spoken to any journalists and what had been printed was rubbish.What is worse is you then attach the following transcript, which has errors but which even so does not even back up your own claims in point 10!

[TRANSCRIPT:

“Honestly, I have... I know nothing. I have been here three months. [She means: ‘This happened three months ago’. Mrs Fenn had lived I Praia da Luz for years] Until all this happened, I've never spoken to a journalist, they've written rubbish in the newspapers. I've never even uttered a word! I've never (sighing)... it's all rubbish! Please, please, just forget it”. ]

She actually says "Honestly, I have... I know nothing. I have been here three months since all this happened, I have never spoken to a journalist, they've written rubbish in the newspapers, I've never even uttered a word. It's all rubbish, just please, please, forget it" So you weren't that far off - but even with the transcript, you have claimed something differentDon't be a knobend all your life, Tony. Take a day off.

Okay - it appears there are still people out there afflicted by an inability to actually think, read or reason, so we'll try this again, but this time through the medium of storytelling.

In Portugal, after the disappearance of Madeleine, there were two ladies. They were not portuguese, so possibly holidaymakers, possibly from the ex-pat community. They had been interviewed by the PJ and given their evidence. At some point they became acquainted with Robert Murat, either because they knew him as part of the community or met him during the days following Madeleine's disappearance.Meanwhile, the GNR had set up a 'post' in one of the apartments - think of it as an incident room, if you will, or a welfare hub. It's really not important.

The ladies in question became aware that they could hear crying coming from a nearby apartment. At this point, everyone is still looking for a missing child. As they didn't speak Portuguese, they contacted someone they had met who did - Robert Murat. Robert contacted the local post, spoke to the GNR and relayed the message that these women could hear crying coming from a nearby apartment. The GNR presumably checked it out, found it was all perfectly innocent and that was that. It was probably recorded in their 'incident log' but as there was nothing amiss there would be no need to refer anything on and generate further paperwork. The only reason we know about it at all is because the officer, as part of his deposition, was asked about Robert Murat.

And that's it.

It has precisely fuck all to do with Mrs Fenn and the incident on 1st May.

Obviously the words "It's really not important" were missplaced - apparently, it's totally fucking vital. So my bad, the call was taken at the post in Lagos, not the one in PdL. The one in PdL is described as a ''mobile post'', which it certainly was - my recollection is that the Ocean club made an apartment available to them too. No, I'm not going to find a link because it isn't important and I can't be arsed.

That makes absolutely no difference whatsoever to the point, but will hopefully ease someone's OCD.

Hi. Just looked over at the textusa blog. I thought the people over there were supposed to have read the files? Clearly I was wrong. They're accusing you of inventing a GNR post in PdL. That there was no post. I've left them the following quotes:

"He say he does not know Murat, and does not have the notion of having seen him before Friday 4th May at the mobile post installed at Rua Agostinho da Silva.

The first he knew about the existence of Murat was of an active individual who offered his help to translate some information/contacts with people who arrived at the mobile post, also offering to make a bridge with the OC."

"On the following day, in the morning, he remembers that Robert Murat arrived at the mobile post saying that he noticed the journalists's suspicion about him and gave his mobile number and told him that he was going to discuss this with the PJ and that he was going to have 'dinner'."

In cases such as this, it's common practice to set up a mobile post. I'm amazed Textusa wasn't aware of this.

Hiya - thanks very much. I've put a correction up, it was my crossed wires, I forgot the call was taken at the Lagos post. It's just typical diversion, an attempt to avoid the fact that the incident had nothing whatsoever to do with Mrs Fenn's report of crying on the 1st May.

But there was a post in PdL, so Textusa is wrong As usual, not that she's admitting it. She's now accusing me of being you. I've seen her do the same many times, but could never be sure she was wrong to do so, until now.

The Textusa blog simply cannot be referred to as a place of honesty and credible facts. I think it's a disgrace that they can't admit when they're wrong.

For what it is worth, myself and many others are only too aware of the lies being written by Textusa, and think that generally, the blog and the writer is a joke.

Did Textusa ever reply to the perfectly reasonable question from Professor Guedes?

I recall her asking for evidence of swinging, and Textusa dodging the question.

Hi,Yes, she has always been wrong, but there was little point arguing the toss with her.The problem with Textusa is not that she makes mistakes which she fails to acknowledge, it's that she simply makes things up. Her basic theory was set in stone a long time ago and she refuses to deviate from it significantly despite all the evidence that she is wrong.

She never did answer Anne's question - the nearest she got was to say that if it was swinging, there wouldn't BE any evidence, so how could she produce it?

It is good to know that other people recognise her deceit too. I don't think she has ever been taken seriously, or at least not for a long time now. Thank you for trying to point out her error to her, I appreciate it.

Mrs Fenn was clearly a thorn in fragrant Kate's side. From Kate's book of 'the truth' we know that she appeared 'on a balcony'. Note the lack of detail here. There are lies and lies of omission. I would suggest that Kate excels at both. Mrs Fenn doesn't just appear on any old balcony but she appears on the balcony above their apartment. Hence they could see her and speak to her. However, while Kate fails to identify the balcony on which Mrs Fenn appears, she is, apparently, 'fairly certain' about what time it was. While I would suggest that the omission of the particular balcony on which Mrs Fenn appears is one of Kate's omissions (because it is important - Mrs Fenn is a close neighbour and therefore an important eye-witness) the near certainty with which Kate can remember when Mrs Fenn appeared on the balcony above them is also important. Because the timing of when the alarm was raised is a significant issue. As is the time when the police were called. Kate is 'fairly certain' that Mrs Fenn appeared on the balcony at about 11pm. I would suggest that this means that Mrs Fenn didn't appear on the balcony at the time that Kate tells us but appeared at a different time. Otherwise, why would Kate be 'fairly certain' of the time? Logic would suggest that Mrs Fenn would come out of her apartment when she heard all the noise about a missing child. And, depending on which account you read, this was anywhere between 9.15pm and 10pm onwards. But unlikely to have been as late as 11pm, given that Mrs Fenn lived above the apartment and we know that chaos erupted around the apartment below her by 10pm at the latest.

We also know, from Kate's book, that Mrs Fenn inquired (Kate's choice of word) 'in a plummy voice': 'Can someone tell me what all the noise is about?' While Kate's disparaging tone is of course illuminating, what is of equal importance is that Kate lets us know that Mrs Fenn was able to hear noise from the apartment below her. Which of course might well be significant in the context of the crying incident which Mrs Fenn reported as having heard coming from apartment 5A on a previous evening.

It would be interesting to find out at what time Mrs Fenn appeared on the balcony above the McCanns' apartment and spoke to them. Despite what Kate writes in her book it is on record that Mrs Fenn spoke to Gerry and offered the use of her phone. Gerry apparently told her that the police had already been called. Given all the above and the fact that you often have to reverse what Kate and Gerry say in order to get some kind of semblance of the truth, I would suggest that Mrs Fenn appeared on her balcony well before 11pm that fateful Thursday evening and also before the police had been called.

Interesting. Bogart’s theory is that Gerry was not around during the initial ‘panic’ and was busily secreting Madeleine. His basis for this is that Gerry is not referenced by any of the Tapas 7 during that period. The time of the Mrs Fenn interaction will be useful to support (or not) his theory.

She states that, apart from the screaming of the mother, she saw many people on the streets in search of the child. She also refers to an episode in which GERRY spoke to a policeman (she doesn't know what kind of police force) claiming more officers were needed to proceed to the search

it's hard to believe a guilty man would tell Police to get more officers on the street to search for a child he'd just hidden nearby. Im inclined to believe Mrs Fenn's eyewitness statement so.. either they've been telling the truth all along OR Madeleine was not nearby/findable. I tend towards the latter, based on all the other evidence I've seen so far.

BA

PS> TextUSA is laughable now - I cant even be bothered to read that tripe anymore. What a goon.

"I'm doing a post about it later, so we'll have a round up of those she had a go at in the book and what they did to attract her ire."

Does the fragrant Kate ever thank anyone/any official body in the book ? Does she ever acknowledge the work done by the authorities (not the lazy, sardine munching Portuguese , obviously. But what about Leics Police, the Yard, CEOP (is that the lot who screwed up in trying to screw Murat over ?). Or maybe CEOP get a roasting for that cock up ? Clearly I have not (and will not, ever) read this mighty tome but while we all know the book to be (a version of) the truth does it do anything else ?

Taken from The Madeleine Foundation:Tony Bennett on Maurice Boland Talk Radio Europeby Joana Morais 9 years ago TB: Right, I’m going to leave all of those innuendos up, because they don’t form part of my book at all. But what I think I would like to stress is the evidence we do have of Madeleine crying for 75 minutes, heard by the neighbour Mrs Pamela Fenn. Now let’s leave aside all questions of the McCanns conduct, responsible doctors – fine, yes, out with friends – fine, got no problem with that at all. But, we have factually, on the record, Madeleine being heard crying for 75 minutes continuously on Tuesday, May 1st. Now, that alone tell us that something isn’t, something is not quite right and it’s easy to think of how many different things could happen to a child that’s unattended for that length of time.